July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5467 

real goal of the left was not simply to 

have rational, if you will, laws that 

might limit the use of guns—what guns 

could be had, how many clips, who 

could have them; criminals, the mentally infirm—but, rather, that was just 

a smokescreen to get rid of guns. And 

there was enough evidence back in the 

1980s and 1990s that people actually 

wanted to do that. 

So if you look at the ads from the 

NRA and the groups even farther over, 

the gun owners of America, their basic 

complaint is that the CHUCK SCHUMERs 

of the world want to take away your 

gun, even if it is the hunting rifle your 

Uncle Willie gave you when you were 

14. 

I think it would be very important 

for those of us who are for gun control—some rational laws on guns—to 

make it clear once and for all that is 

not our goal, to make it clear that the 

belief is that the second amendment 

does matter, that there is a right to 

bear arms, just like there is a right to 

free speech and others, and if you are 

an average, normal American citizen, 

you have the right to bear arms. 

I think if the people who are pro-gun 

and from the more rural areas, and different than Brooklyn, the city I am 

from, were convinced that there was a 

broad consensus even in the pro-gun 

control movement that there was a 

right to bear arms, they might get off 

their haunches a little bit. I think that 

is important for this part of the compromise. So the Heller decision, which 

basically said that—and now is the law 

of the land, but was not until a few 

years ago—should not be something 

that is opposed by those who are for rational laws on guns. 

I saw that even the Brady organization, that I have worked very closely 

with—Jim and Sarah Brady helped us 

pass the assault weapons ban and the 

Brady law; I have worked with them 

closely and have known them for decades—but even the Brady organization, 

which in the past had not had that position, is now beginning to embrace it. 

I think that is for the good, and I think 

people should know that. 

Once we establish that it is in the 

Constitution, it is part of the American 

way of life—even though some do not 

like that—but once we establish that 

basic paradigm: that no one wants to 

abolish guns for everybody or only 

allow a limited few to have them under 

the most limited circumstances—this 

is on a national level—then maybe we 

can begin the other side of the dialog. 

The other side of the dialog is, once 

you know no one is going to take away 

your gun, if you are not a felon—your 

shotgun that you like to go hunting 

with or a sidearm if you are a store 

owner in a crime-ridden area—we can 

then say to those on the other side: OK. 

We understand that it is unfair to read 

the second amendment so narrowly and 

read all the other amendments so 

broadly, and you have seen us as doing 

that. But, in response, we would say, 

and I would say, that no amendment is 

absolute, and whether it is in reaction 

to what happened in the 1980s and the 

1990s or because of fanaticism, or for 

maybe fundraising reasons, it seems 

that too many on the pro-gun side believe the second amendment is as absolute, or more absolute, than all the 

other amendments. They are taking 

the converse position to what I mentioned before—the left seeing the second amendment as minuscule, but the 

right seeing the second amendment as 

broader than every other amendment. 

Certainly, the right believes in 

antipornography laws. That is a limitation on the first amendment. Certainly, most people in America believe 

what—I think it was Oliver Wendell 

Holmes or Louis D. Brandeis who said: 

You cannot falsely scream ‘‘fire’’ in a 

crowded theater. That, too, was a limitation on the first amendment. 

Every amendment is a balancing 

test. That is what the Constitution has 

said. 

No amendment is absolute or our society would be tied in a complete knot. 

And so we say to our colleagues, this is 

not a partisan issue completely. There 

are some Republicans who are for gun 

control and some Democrats who oppose it completely. It seems to be more 

of a regional issue than almost an ideological issue. But we would say to our 

colleagues from the pro-gun side of 

things, look, there is a right to bear 

arms. We are not trying to take guns 

away from people we do not have any 

reason to take them away from. But 

you have to then admit that you cannot be so rigid, so doctrinaire that 

there should be no limitation on the 

second amendment. 

The Brady law is a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, saying 

that felons or the mentally infirm or 

spousal abusers should not have a gun. 

The Heller decision acknowledged that 

those kinds of reasonable limitations 

did not violate the second amendment, 

just as the Court has recognized they 

are limitations that do not violate the 

first amendment, all because it is a 

balancing test. 

So I would argue—and we can all find 

the balance in different ways—not only 

is the Brady law a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, it is 

not interfering with the average person’s right to bear arms, but neither 

are the assault weapons. I know there 

was an argument between my colleague 

from California, with whom I agree, 

and my colleague from Wisconsin, with 

whom I do not agree: An AR–15 is used 

for hunting. But I have heard people 

say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a tank. My view is, the assault weapons ban that was passed, 

which was a rather modest bill, was 

less important in saving lives than the 

Brady law by many degrees. But I 

would argue it is a reasonable thing to 

do. A limitation that says you should 

not be able buy a magazine that holds 

1,000 rounds, that is a reasonable thing 

to do. Rules that say we should be able 

to trace where a gun originated so we 

can find those who are violating some 

of these limitations such as the Brady 

law—gun shops that do not check your 

background even though they are required to by law—is a reasonable thing 

to do. Again, we can debate where to 

draw the line of reasonableness. 

But we might, might, might—and I 

do not want to be too optimistic here, 

having years and years of having gone 

through this—but we might be able to 

come to an agreement in the middle 

where we say, yes, there is a right to 

bear arms, and, yes, there can be reasonable limitations on the second 

amendment just as there can be on others. 

That is the place I suggest we try to 

go. Maybe, maybe, we can break 

through the hard ideological lines that 

have been drawn on this issue. Maybe, 

maybe, maybe we can tell those who 

are at the extremes on the far right 

and the far left that we disagree with 

you. And maybe, maybe, maybe we 

could pass some laws that might, 

might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred, or, 

at the very least, when you have someone who is mentally infirm, such as the 

shooter in Aurora, limit the damage 

they are able to do. Maybe. 

But I would suggest the place to start 

here is for us to admit there is a right 

to bear arms, admit the Heller decision 

has a place in the Constitution, just 

like decisions that supported the other 

amendments, and at the same time say 

that does not mean that right is absolute. That is just a suggestion. I have 

been thinking about this since I read 

those horrible articles about those 

young men and women being killed. I 

would welcome comments, particularly 

from my colleagues on the other side of 

this issue, whether they be Democrat 

or Republican, on those thoughts. 

Just as we have fought over and over 

and over again on so many issues, and 

we have gotten into our corners—there 

may be none that we have gotten into 

our corners on more than on gun control. Maybe it is time, as on those 

other issues, to come out of the corners 

and try, people of good will, who will 

disagree and come from different parts 

of the country with different needs, 

maybe there is a way we can come together and try and try to break 

through the logjam and make the 

country a better place. 

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent the Senate proceed 

to a period of morning business, with 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

Senators permitted to speak therein 

for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

19TH INTERNATIONAL AIDS 

CONFERENCE 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am 

proud that the 19th biennial International AIDS conference is being held 

in the Nation’s Capital after 22 years of 

being held abroad. 

President Obama was instrumental 

in bringing the conference back to the 

United States by announcing in October 2009 that the United States would 

lift its entry restriction on people living with HIV. 

The United States has been the leader in combating the scourge of HIV/ 

AIDS, and it is fitting that this significant meeting of the best and brightest 

scientists, philanthropists, activists, 

government leaders, and people living 

with HIV/AIDS is taking place in 

Washington, DC. 

It is made even more symbolic by the 

fact that Washington, DC, has the 

highest rate of AIDS than any city in 

the Nation. 

As we look to ‘‘Turn the Tide Together,’’ as the theme of the conference 

indicates, we must continue to support 

a number of long-term strategies both 

at home and around the world, building 

on the successes we have seen in the 

past few decades. 

Significant scientific breakthroughs 

have been made this year alone, and we 

can see investments we have made to 

fight HIV/AIDS beginning to pay off. 

The National Institutes of Health, for 

example, released a study last fall on 

the HPTN 052 clinical trial that showed 

that if newly infected individuals started antiretroviral treatment when their 

immune systems are relatively 

healthy, they are 96 percent less likely 

to transmit the virus to their 

uninfected partner. 

Others report that the cost of treating HIV is four times less than previously thought. And now more than 

ever, scientists believe that an effective HIV vaccine is within reach. 

These are amazing breakthroughs 

and could reflect the beginning of the 

end as we work toward an AIDS-free 

generation. 

This past year new infection rates 

and AIDS deaths decreased. Twenty 

percent more people had access to 

antiretroviral therapy worldwide in 

2011 than they did in 2010. 

These numbers don’t appear out of 

thin air—they correlate to increased 

investments from the United States 

and the Global Fund. This is a time 

when we must continue funding our investments to fight HIV/AIDS. 

But let’s talk about how we have 

achieved these amazing results. 

President Bush was instrumental in 

establishing PEPFAR. The President’s 

Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief was 

initially a $15 billion commitment over 

5 years to fight the AIDS pandemic. 

Today, PEPFAR is one of the largest 

health initiatives ever established by a 

single country and remains critical to 

saving millions of lives. 

PEPFAR is a strongly bipartisan program, and since its inception, it has directly supported nearly 13 million people with access to care and services. 

As of 2011, the United States supported lifesaving antiretroviral treatment for more than 3.9 million men, 

women, and children worldwide. 

PEPFAR counseled 9.8 million pregnant women to test them for HIV/ 

AIDS, allowing more than 200,000 babies to be born AIDS-free. 

Another key ally in the fight against 

AIDS is the Global Fund. 

The Global Fund was established in 

2002 as a public-private partnership, requiring the buy-in of grant recipient 

countries. These participants must 

commit to continuing the program and 

serving its people after the Global 

Fund grant expires. 

This novel approach has proved wildly successful. To date, the Global Fund 

has supported more than 1,000 programs in 151 countries and provided 

AIDS treatment to over 3 million people. 

The United States must continue to 

be a leading supporter of the Global 

Fund. 

The generosity of the American people has improved and saved lives, 

stemmed the spread of HIV/AIDS, and 

provided medicine, hospitals, and clinics to those who are infected. 

Together, PEPFAR and the Global 

Fund have built health care systems 

where none existed before and allowed 

individuals infected with HIV/AIDS to 

dream of a future. 

These programs also ensure that the 

countries we are working in play a part 

in helping their own people survive and 

thrive. 

While we have made significant 

progress in combating HIV/AIDS, we 

cannot be complacent. 

Here in the Nation’s Capital, the 

AIDS rate is higher than in some SubSaharan African countries, and infection rates are even growing in some demographics. 

In Illinois, 37,000 individuals are living with AIDS, with 80 percent of them 

residing in Chicago. 

Internationally, the gains that we 

have made could easily be lost; the increase of infections in Southeast Asia, 

Russia, and the Ukraine—places that 

have historically had low infection 

rates is alarming. 

If we lose our focus or if international donors stop contributing to 

key programs, we lose out on the momentum built in recent years to combat this disease. 

That is why it is good that this administration continues to push for an 

AIDS-free generation. 

Secretary Clinton announced three 

new efforts during this week’s conference: $15 million in implementation 

research to identify specific interventions, $20 million for a challenge fund 

to support country-led efforts to expand services, and $2 million through 

the Robert Carr Civil Society Network 

Fund to bolster civil society groups. 

Secretary Clinton also noted: ‘‘Creating an AIDS-free generation takes 

more than the right tools, as important as they are. Ultimately, it’s about 

people—the people who have the most 

to contribute to this goal and the most 

to gain from it.’’ She is right. 

Creating an AIDS-free generation is 

about working together to help save 

and improve lives. It is about supporting the individuals and communities that have already made great inroads in addressing this epidemic. 

By reaffirming our leadership to initiatives such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund, which support these individuals and communities, we can continue 

to make a difference. Only then can we 

truly wish to usher in an AIDS-free 

generation. 

f 

OUR SHARED COMMITMENT TO 

FIGHT HIV/AIDS 

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I 

rise to discuss the HIV/AIDS epidemic, 

the tremendous progress we have made 

thus far, and the need to do even more 

if we are going to stop this devastating 

disease in its tracks. 

The fight against HIV/AIDS has been 

a long one. In more than 30 years, approximately 26 million people have 

died from AIDS, and there are still an 

astounding 7,000 new infections every 

day. But our commitment to combating this disease is making important strides. 

In the past decade, new HIV infections fell 20 percent, thanks in large 

part to the lifesaving antiretroviral 

treatment we and our partners are 

making available in every corner of the 

world that AIDS touches. 

We know that relatively healthy people with HIV who receive early treatment with antiretroviral drugs are 96 

percent less likely to pass on the virus 

to their uninfected partners. So treating these individuals not only allows 

them to live their lives in dignity but 

is also an important key to prevention. 

In my home State of Maryland, the 

Jhpiego program has spent decades addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in 

South America, Africa, Europe and 

Asia. Jhpiego has made enormous 

strides in prevention of mother-tochild transmission, increasing counseling and testing and providing greater access to antiretroviral drugs. 

Jhpiego has integrated HIV/AIDS 

services with tuberculosis, cervical 

cancer, malaria in pregnancy, family 

planning and maternal and child health 

services, to address the problem of coinfection among HIV/AIDS patients 

and to reach as many people as possible. These integrated services represent the future of our health assistance. We have learned from programs 

like Jhpiego’s what our best practices 

should be so that we are innovators in 

prevention, care, and treatment. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE